This NPC position may be based upon an 

 underestimate of the pace of technological ad- 

 vance as serious as that made by the framers of the 

 Geneva Convention. NPC itself recognizes that 

 "limited knowledge" makes it impossible to draw 

 a "definitive seaward limit on existence of petro- 

 leum deposits."^' On August 26, 1968-not even 

 two months after the NPC report was adopted— 

 the National Science Foundation announced that 

 the Glomar Challenger, on an expedition spon- 

 sored by it, had drilled a hole penetrating 480 feet 

 into the seabed under 11,753 feet of water in the 

 Sigsbee Knolls area of the Gulf of Mexico and 

 found a show of oil and gas.*° Nor does NPC 

 speak for some American mining companies which 

 cannot afford to ignore the large, potential re- 

 serves of copper and nickel in the manganese 

 nodules lying on the bed of the sea beyond the 

 continental margins. 



It is not helpful to point out that even if the 

 international legal-poUtical framework were satis- 

 factory, economic and technological factors would 

 presently inhibit exploration and exploitation of 

 mineral resources in deep waters. It is also true 

 that if technological and economic factors were 

 favorable, the existing framework would presently 

 deter such exploration and exploitation. Just as it 

 takes time and planning to prepare the scientific, 

 technological and economic bases for exploring 

 and exploiting the mineral resources lying deep 

 under water, it also takes time and planning to 

 create an international legal-poUtical framework 

 that will be hospitable to such exploration and 

 exploitation.^ ^ Indeed, conscious and appropriate 

 law-making may actually encourage the steps 

 necessary to build the scientific, technological and 

 economic foundations for the desired activity, and 

 thereby help achieve the objectives of the Marine 

 Resources and Engineering Development Act. 



NPC's recommendation to take "exclusive juris- 

 diction" of the mineral resources of the conti- 



"/d at 5. 



*°See Ocean Industry, October 1968, Vol. 3, No. 10, p. 

 35. 



^^ [C] omprehensive change in international law is slow. 

 The principal method is by multilateral convention at a 

 multilateral conference. Such a conference is usually the 

 final stage in an extended process that includes expert 

 studies, the drafting of texts, the comments of govern- 

 ments, other preparatory measures and diplomatic activ- 

 ity that takes years to complete, even if no government 

 deliberately seeks to delay. 

 Henkin, supra note 38, at 37. 



nental margins may at first seem attractive. The 

 United States has the power to effectuate it and 

 acquire permanent, exclusive access to the mineral 

 resources of approximately 479,000 square statute 

 miles of sea-bed and subsoil, in addition to 

 approximately 850,000 square statute miles of 

 continental shelf up to the 200-meter isobath.*^ 



Very rich petroleum deposits are expected to 

 be found in this vast area and the United States 

 would make itself the sole beneficiary of their 

 exploitation. Furthermore, some United States oil 

 companies would rather face the known perils of 

 the exercise of exclusive authority by coastal 

 States around the world than the unknown perils 

 of an international legal-pohtical framework yet to 

 be negotiated. 



Nevertheless, the International Panel recom- 

 mends that this alternative should be rejected. In 

 view of the uncertainties that surround the ex- 

 isting definition of the continental shelf, the 

 international community would regard United 

 States action pursuant to this alternative as a 

 "grab." We think President Johnson was opposed 

 not only to a "race," but also to an agreement by 

 coastal States to "grab" the sea's resources. 



This alternative is unfair to the non-coastal 

 States of the world and to the coastal States which 

 will not find important mineral deposits on or 

 under their continental slopes and rises. 



The NPC proposal would benefit other coastal 

 States of the world proportionately more than the 

 United States and thus give them exclusive author- 

 ity over the natural resources of immense subsea 

 areas. In light of recent history, it is short-sighted 

 to assume that U.S. private enterprise would be 

 better off to deal with these coastal States for 

 rights to develop these resources in the absence of 

 any recognition of the interest of the international 

 community in them. 



Finally, there is the danger, which materialized 

 in some cases as an unforeseen and undesired 

 consequence of the Truman Proclamation of 1945, 

 that other nations may be impelled to extend their 



*^ These figures are based upon estimates of the United 

 States Geological Survey. The equivalent figures in square 

 nautical miles would be approximately 361,000 and 

 630,000 respectively. Around the world, the number of 

 square nautical miles between the 200-meter and the 

 2,500-meter isobath is approximately equal to the number 

 of square nautical miles of continental shelf up to the 200- 

 meter isobath. Other coastal States of the world would 

 thus gain proportionately more than the United States by 

 the NPC suggestion. 



VIII-22 



